The inconsistency which annoys me most in this regard is saying that true socialism has never been tried while repeatedly claiming that free markets don't work, laissez-faire doesn't work, capitalism doesn't work ...
Either all have never been tried; or close approximations of all have been tried, and all socialist approximations have performed worse than app market approximations.
I just finally finished part 3 of "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy" last week thinking very little in that book published in 1942 would have anything to say about almost any contemporary debates, and then I stumble across this article.
That books is extremely relevant to this particular debate in ways that are surprising. I highly recommend the book!
As John Ketchum suggests, the definitions you start with largely determines the available conclusions. You could define U.S. capitalism as a system of socialism where the state (not a free market) controls the most important economic benefits and burdens.
"National Socialism was not laissez-faire capitalism; it was not orthodox Marxian socialism; it was a racially nationalist command-and-control economy with private titles often left in place but private economic decision-making heavily subordinated to state objectives"
For readers who miss the implication, here is the explicit version of what Caplan is saying: If socialism means state ownership or state control of economic life, then Nazism fits many of the same criteria that Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Castroism, and other real-world socialist regimes fit — because all of them subordinated private economic decision-making to centralized political authority. If socialism instead means egalitarian worker control, democratic governance, and class-based internationalism, then Nazism fails those tests — but so do Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, and every major communist regime. In other words, the definitional move used to exclude Nazism from socialism also excludes most historical forms of socialism, because they shared the same authoritarian, anti-egalitarian, non-democratic structure. The only consistent distinction is that Nazism was racial class-nationalist state socialism, while communism was economic class-internationalist state socialism — different moral narratives, similar institutional mechanics.
The intellectual lineage point is true but doesn’t resolve the definitional issue. Genealogy can distinguish Marxist socialism from other traditions, but it can’t functionally define socialism, because intellectual ancestry doesn’t determine institutional structure. Marx envisioned egalitarian worker control, democratic governance, and internationalism; yet every major Marxist regime replaced those aims with centralized, authoritarian state control. If we define socialism by Marx’s intended principles, then most historical socialist regimes fail the definition. If we define socialism by the institutional mechanics those regimes actually implemented — state ownership or state control of economic life — then Nazism fits the same structural category. So Marxist lineage distinguishes the origin story, but not the institutional form. The structural comparison still holds.
Agreed, an definition by heritage is not a definition by function. By definition.
And I don't think Marx imagined much at all. The government was supposed to just whither away. He didn't talk about democracy or other institutions once you arrive in socialist nirvana.
Right. Marx’s ‘withering away’ leaves the institutional question unanswered. That’s precisely why lineage can’t anchor the definition: the theory is indeterminate, the regimes were determinate, and the determinate form is what comparisons must track.
Lineage is useful for tracing traditions, but it still doesn’t define institutional form. Christianity has enormous doctrinal variation across its lineage; Marxism has enormous institutional variation across its lineage. That’s exactly why functional structure has to do the definitional work. Genealogy explains origins; it doesn’t settle categories. In any case, that’s the full shape of the distinction I’m drawing, so I’ll leave it there. Have a nice day.
One thing that took me a long time to wrap my head around when arguing with internet socialists is that socialism is an outcome (worker ownership over the means of production) rather than a plan or set of policies. In their mind it's not an airplane, it's the action of flight.
The USSR wasn't socialism in the same way that people who glued feathers to their arms and jumped off of cliffs weren't flying. Back in the day the USSR was a "socialist machine" in the same way that a person with feathers glued to their arms is a "flying machine". When the USSR artfully jumped off a cliff and dashed itself amongst the rocks it proved that it was not a socialist machine (and never was). After all, a socialist machine is one that makes socialism, and the USSR did not make socialism.
Socialists seem to recognize this, and do point out that the USSR failed to achieve many of the things we'd associate with socialism. In the same way that someone could (very correctly) point out that the bloody mess at the bottom of a cliff isn't a flying machine. But they can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that they too might fail. Indeed there might be (almost certainly is) no way to achieve socialism at all!
This is why socialists will gleefully say that "real socialism hasn't been tried" in the same way that a flight-obsessed crackpot might claim that "real flying has never been tried, just falling". The problem isn't with socialism as an outcome. Socialism isn't a half bad utopia.
The real problem is that all we can do is build our best approximation of a socialist machine, because thus far we haven't had a single success. So there are very, very good reasons to not let the socialist glue feathers to your arms and usher you towards a cliff.
I just downloaded the Android ChatGPT app and asked:
"Can Nazism be fairly described as a type of socialism?"
ChatGPT response:
No. Nazism is generally not fairly described as a type of socialism, although the name National Socialism can make it sound that way.
The key distinctions are:
Socialism traditionally seeks some form of social or collective ownership or control of the means of production and is historically associated with class politics and economic equality.
Nazism was a far-right, ultranationalist, racist, and totalitarian ideology. It rejected Marxism and class struggle, persecuted communists and socialists, and preserved private property under state direction.
The Nazi regime did exercise extensive state control over the economy, but state control by itself does not make a system socialist. Fascist governments can direct private businesses while leaving ownership in private hands.
The Nazis used the word "socialism" in their party name partly as political messaging, but their version of "socialism" was fundamentally different from the socialist tradition associated with Marxism and workers' ownership.
So the most accurate characterization is fascist, not socialist. There are debates over how much the Nazi economy should be described as "state-directed capitalism" or something else, but calling Nazism simply a form of socialism is misleading.
"...command-and-control economy with private titles often left in place but private economic decision-making heavily subordinated to state objectives."
Since reading Ayn Rand, I understood this to characterize fascism. How do you define fascism, Bryan?
I would also add that Nazism didn’t really have the installation of a communist state as its end goal.
Like, even the twisted Leninist version of Marxist theory held to the core notion that socialism was the bridge between capitalism and full on classless utopian communism.
But even when they weren’t cynically using it to win votes, the Nazis saw socialism as merely a vehicle for elevating the volk to their rightful status. The Nazi vision of utopia was one where an intricate set of class relations, socialistic or otherwise — but all defined and violently enforced by the state — would deliver utopian goodies to the volk.
The communist dream has a bunch of equal citizens magically providing for each other and owning everything in common.
The Nazi dream, again shorn of all the racism, has a state that dictates every economic relation such that the volk never have reason to imagine a need for communism. The strong would dominate the weak, but all would magically be happy with the bounty produced by hewing to their proper place in society.
Due to the obsession with highly regimented and unequal relations, Nazism most closely resembles an attempt to reconcile feudalism with the modern industrial economy and small-d democratized body politic.
A lot of socialists say something like "Real communism/socialism has never been tried." Doesn't that indicate they would be willing to bite the bullet and say that Marxism/Leninian as practices in the USSR wasn't real socialism?
It sure I love BC giving us ChatGPT output (of the kind I get it to do frequently), but this whole post was totally worth it for the Tootsie pop commercial reference and picture!
The inconsistency which annoys me most in this regard is saying that true socialism has never been tried while repeatedly claiming that free markets don't work, laissez-faire doesn't work, capitalism doesn't work ...
Either all have never been tried; or close approximations of all have been tried, and all socialist approximations have performed worse than app market approximations.
I just finally finished part 3 of "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy" last week thinking very little in that book published in 1942 would have anything to say about almost any contemporary debates, and then I stumble across this article.
That books is extremely relevant to this particular debate in ways that are surprising. I highly recommend the book!
Any other interesting takeaways from that book you can share?
As John Ketchum suggests, the definitions you start with largely determines the available conclusions. You could define U.S. capitalism as a system of socialism where the state (not a free market) controls the most important economic benefits and burdens.
Keep in mind that ChatGPT and the other AI chat bots are extremely sycophantic and 'want' to agree with you.
So what you tested was basically: how long does it take ChatGPT to figure out what I want when I ask it leading questions.
"National Socialism was not laissez-faire capitalism; it was not orthodox Marxian socialism; it was a racially nationalist command-and-control economy with private titles often left in place but private economic decision-making heavily subordinated to state objectives"
In other words, same as New Deal America.
For readers who miss the implication, here is the explicit version of what Caplan is saying: If socialism means state ownership or state control of economic life, then Nazism fits many of the same criteria that Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, Castroism, and other real-world socialist regimes fit — because all of them subordinated private economic decision-making to centralized political authority. If socialism instead means egalitarian worker control, democratic governance, and class-based internationalism, then Nazism fails those tests — but so do Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, and every major communist regime. In other words, the definitional move used to exclude Nazism from socialism also excludes most historical forms of socialism, because they shared the same authoritarian, anti-egalitarian, non-democratic structure. The only consistent distinction is that Nazism was racial class-nationalist state socialism, while communism was economic class-internationalist state socialism — different moral narratives, similar institutional mechanics.
That's not the only distinction that survives. You can also via the intellectual legacy of Marx to define the other socialism.
The intellectual lineage point is true but doesn’t resolve the definitional issue. Genealogy can distinguish Marxist socialism from other traditions, but it can’t functionally define socialism, because intellectual ancestry doesn’t determine institutional structure. Marx envisioned egalitarian worker control, democratic governance, and internationalism; yet every major Marxist regime replaced those aims with centralized, authoritarian state control. If we define socialism by Marx’s intended principles, then most historical socialist regimes fail the definition. If we define socialism by the institutional mechanics those regimes actually implemented — state ownership or state control of economic life — then Nazism fits the same structural category. So Marxist lineage distinguishes the origin story, but not the institutional form. The structural comparison still holds.
Agreed, an definition by heritage is not a definition by function. By definition.
And I don't think Marx imagined much at all. The government was supposed to just whither away. He didn't talk about democracy or other institutions once you arrive in socialist nirvana.
Right. Marx’s ‘withering away’ leaves the institutional question unanswered. That’s precisely why lineage can’t anchor the definition: the theory is indeterminate, the regimes were determinate, and the determinate form is what comparisons must track.
Huh? The Christian bible also doesn't answer all questions, but lineage is still very useful.
Marxism isn't all that different as far as religions go. At least in form. Of course, they have different professed believes etc.
Lineage is useful for tracing traditions, but it still doesn’t define institutional form. Christianity has enormous doctrinal variation across its lineage; Marxism has enormous institutional variation across its lineage. That’s exactly why functional structure has to do the definitional work. Genealogy explains origins; it doesn’t settle categories. In any case, that’s the full shape of the distinction I’m drawing, so I’ll leave it there. Have a nice day.
One thing that took me a long time to wrap my head around when arguing with internet socialists is that socialism is an outcome (worker ownership over the means of production) rather than a plan or set of policies. In their mind it's not an airplane, it's the action of flight.
The USSR wasn't socialism in the same way that people who glued feathers to their arms and jumped off of cliffs weren't flying. Back in the day the USSR was a "socialist machine" in the same way that a person with feathers glued to their arms is a "flying machine". When the USSR artfully jumped off a cliff and dashed itself amongst the rocks it proved that it was not a socialist machine (and never was). After all, a socialist machine is one that makes socialism, and the USSR did not make socialism.
Socialists seem to recognize this, and do point out that the USSR failed to achieve many of the things we'd associate with socialism. In the same way that someone could (very correctly) point out that the bloody mess at the bottom of a cliff isn't a flying machine. But they can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that they too might fail. Indeed there might be (almost certainly is) no way to achieve socialism at all!
This is why socialists will gleefully say that "real socialism hasn't been tried" in the same way that a flight-obsessed crackpot might claim that "real flying has never been tried, just falling". The problem isn't with socialism as an outcome. Socialism isn't a half bad utopia.
The real problem is that all we can do is build our best approximation of a socialist machine, because thus far we haven't had a single success. So there are very, very good reasons to not let the socialist glue feathers to your arms and usher you towards a cliff.
Funnily enough the closest thing we have to the real socialist outcome is capitalist social democracy in the Nordics and index funds.
I just downloaded the Android ChatGPT app and asked:
"Can Nazism be fairly described as a type of socialism?"
ChatGPT response:
No. Nazism is generally not fairly described as a type of socialism, although the name National Socialism can make it sound that way.
The key distinctions are:
Socialism traditionally seeks some form of social or collective ownership or control of the means of production and is historically associated with class politics and economic equality.
Nazism was a far-right, ultranationalist, racist, and totalitarian ideology. It rejected Marxism and class struggle, persecuted communists and socialists, and preserved private property under state direction.
The Nazi regime did exercise extensive state control over the economy, but state control by itself does not make a system socialist. Fascist governments can direct private businesses while leaving ownership in private hands.
The Nazis used the word "socialism" in their party name partly as political messaging, but their version of "socialism" was fundamentally different from the socialist tradition associated with Marxism and workers' ownership.
So the most accurate characterization is fascist, not socialist. There are debates over how much the Nazi economy should be described as "state-directed capitalism" or something else, but calling Nazism simply a form of socialism is misleading.
"...command-and-control economy with private titles often left in place but private economic decision-making heavily subordinated to state objectives."
Since reading Ayn Rand, I understood this to characterize fascism. How do you define fascism, Bryan?
I would also add that Nazism didn’t really have the installation of a communist state as its end goal.
Like, even the twisted Leninist version of Marxist theory held to the core notion that socialism was the bridge between capitalism and full on classless utopian communism.
But even when they weren’t cynically using it to win votes, the Nazis saw socialism as merely a vehicle for elevating the volk to their rightful status. The Nazi vision of utopia was one where an intricate set of class relations, socialistic or otherwise — but all defined and violently enforced by the state — would deliver utopian goodies to the volk.
The communist dream has a bunch of equal citizens magically providing for each other and owning everything in common.
The Nazi dream, again shorn of all the racism, has a state that dictates every economic relation such that the volk never have reason to imagine a need for communism. The strong would dominate the weak, but all would magically be happy with the bounty produced by hewing to their proper place in society.
Due to the obsession with highly regimented and unequal relations, Nazism most closely resembles an attempt to reconcile feudalism with the modern industrial economy and small-d democratized body politic.
A lot of socialists say something like "Real communism/socialism has never been tried." Doesn't that indicate they would be willing to bite the bullet and say that Marxism/Leninian as practices in the USSR wasn't real socialism?
It sure I love BC giving us ChatGPT output (of the kind I get it to do frequently), but this whole post was totally worth it for the Tootsie pop commercial reference and picture!